My first reaction was that 4 days to re-evaluate & revise the merit list would not be sufficient time.

But reading direction c it is possible to read that as directing that in these 4 days, the expert panel would either take a decision/ actions for re-evaluation and revision of the merit list or it will pass or declare the merit list/ results. Therefore if the expert panel decides to re-evaluate papers and revise the merit list then the process can extend beyond these 4 days.

What is the correct interpretation?

Does his decision apply to the entire CLAT process or only to the petitioners.

Initial thoughts without clicking on the pdf.

Maybe someone should move the Supreme Court in this 8 day respite to get an even better order.

Read the judgment. Its a good decision, it applies to everyone who took the CLAT.

One thing though - the court has been soft on the CLAT convener. Its clear that this fiasco is more than just incompetence, it certainly looks like corruption to me.

Some thoughts/ issues/ points that I think are interesting or relevant.

What is the legal status of the CLAT examiners/committee/ convener? They claim to have limited expertise and in fact claim that they are not experts. This body needs to be replaced with a more formal body going forward.

The CLAT committee deliberately violated the Kerela High Court order dated 15 June and this shows malafides. Maybe the CLAT examiners should also have been impleaded under their own names as they deserve to be held accountable.

CLAT lawyers on instructions presumably, deliberately attempted to delay the hearing of this and other matters by evading notice, delaying responses and then failing to respond fully to the court's directions. No doubt they hoped that once the admission deadlines approached the courts would hesitate to interfere. Once again this conduct reflects malafides. The CLAT convener/ examiners misled the courts that they intended to have all matters clubbed, yet the process to do this was not even initiated. The CLAT committee malafidely delayed its response so that it might not be forced to rectify the sorry situation.

Previous orders in this matter establish that the CLAT lawyers misled the court that the petitioner's objections/ concerns had been satisfactorily dealt with.

The CLAT affidavit dated 25 June 2015 where it took formal objections as to maintainability, delay, joinder of parties, scope of judicial review etc again points to malafides rather than a sincere desire to set things right.

In this affidavit, a bogus objection was taken by the ClAT convener that they wanted to keep the names of the expert panel confidential. Why? On what basis? Instead this appears to have been a ploy to keep its alleged evaluation of the petitioner's concerns confidential even from the petitioner. That the Court eventually rejected this 'confidential' document as unsatisfactory once again points to malafides and a desire to avoid scrutiny by the CLAT convener on how it was actually dealing with the complaint. See how in para 16 the court rejects the confidential document handed over as being unsatisfactory.

The further request for time by the CLAT lawyers to clarify questions as recorded in para 18 which was rejected by the court again points to the malafides of the CLAT. It shows that even as late as 30 June or 2 July, the CLAT examiners had not sorted out their response to the questions with mistakes. They were simply hoping to get away without being held to account.

The decision records the deliberate delays by the CLAT examiners & their failure to sort out the mess created. Overall its a good decision by the Bombay High Court but they should have been harsher on the CLAT committee.

One lacuna in the order is that the CLAT has not been expressly directed to make its future decisions and reasoning public in order to give time to candidates to respond to the decisions that CLAT makes pursuant to this order.

I think some candidate/s should approach the Supreme Court.

Excerpts listed below from the detailed judgement must be noted carefully. Now it remains to be seen whether the CLAT Organizing Committee complies with the order in both letter and spirit, and whether it appoints a transparent committee that looks into ALL disputed questions (including 15 Questions disputed by the Jaipur HC petitioner) or not:

Relevant excerpts from the detailed order are listed as follows:

19. Strikingly, there are various such issues/objections have been raised in the various High Courts, including Allahabad, Keral, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. All these matters are revolving around various objections of CLAT­2015. The decision, even if any, given by the one Authority and/or one Court, it would not serve and /or solve the problems, as it is question of relying on "merit-cum-preference" basis for allotting admission/seats to the respective University/college. It is for the Respondents, ultimately to take final decision in the interest of all, at the earliest. No steps taken or pointed out to club all these pending matters one place/Court, as recorded in order dated 23 June 2015.

20. There are other questions as stated to be wrong, which are subject matter of other Petitions in other High Courts, which cannot be overlooked even by Respondent No.1's Expert Panel. [...] if the questions so raised by the Petitioner and if the issues are Petitioner and if the issues are decided in his favour and/or in favour of such similarly situated students, there is no reason that the concerned Respondents should not decide and/or take decision to revaluate and/or re-assess the marks and prepare the merit lists in accordance with law.

24. [...] One mark can make and/or mar the career of students of his choice, specifically when his wish and/or desire, based upon the hard-work and/or endeavour he/she has made, which needs to be respected by all. The legitimate expectation is clear that the student if has answered correctly the compulsory questions, he is entitled for the legitmate marks. The rejection and denial of such mark, if answer is correct, is definitely unacceptable to any one. We are not inclined to over this, in this era of competition, at entrance level of any examinations/courses.

Pls update on which law grads cleared IAS

Kian please do a story on the poor faculty quality at NLUs and absence of NLU grads teaching at NLUs. You have covered Sid Chauhan's case but we need a more in-depth story.

pay isnt good enough for NLU grads to join the teaching profession - its limited....

Already 4 days since judgement. No response from RML. Are they trying to delay this further?

Hope the petitioner has filed his caveat in the Supreme Court.

Also, all candidates with concerns should promptly write to the CLAT convener referring to this Bom HC decision and inquire about the status of and procedure for compliance with this order. Also place all your concerns before the CLAT again in writing.

And really, some candidates should move the SC & get an even better order which forces CLAT to respond transparently to all concerns of all candidates. With the Vyapam saga now centre-stage, the SC should be receptive to valid concerns about corruption in the CLAT.

The admission process is still going on, as there is no stay on the admission process yet.

Now pg key also under scanning...

Can anyone let me know if the CLAT committee complied with the order? Or can CLAT committee get away without doing so?

There is no stay, not only are admission processes ongoing but for my batch they have been completed at nliu. There is a clear level of indifference of the NLUs to the orders of the SC. And lack of experts in RMLs last so called expert committee